DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Information Disclosure Statement
Acknowledgment is made of receipt of Information Disclosure Statement (PTO-1449) filed 08/12/2025. An initialed copy is attached to this Office Action.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1-3, 5-7, 11-13, 15, 17, 18, 20 and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shousha (USPG Pub No. 2019/0094552) in view of Jensen (USPG Pub No. 2019/0175011).
Regarding claim 1, Shousha discloses a method, performed by one or more processors, of conducting an ophthalmic evaluation using a head-worn device (100) including one or more display devices and one or more cameras facing towards an eye of a user in use (see Figs. 1A-B, Paragraphs 108-110), comprising: displaying an ophthalmic evaluation user interface item (606) (see Fig. 19, Paragraphs 130, 149); receiving user selection of the user interface item (Paragraph 137); projecting a grid onto a retina of an eye of the user (Paragraph 136); capturing at least one image of the retina of the eye of the user (Paragraph 136); analyzing the at least one image to assess the health of the eye of the user by comparing an appearance of the grid in the captured image with a reference appearance of the grid (Paragraph 136); and providing an output of the analysis of the at least one image to the user (Paragraphs 135-136), wherein the method further comprises: associated with the head-worn device (Paragraphs 97, 199). Shousha discloses the claimed invention, but does not specify generating audible ophthalmic evaluation prompts on an audio speaker; and determining compliance with the audible ophthalmic evaluation prompts prior to capturing the at least one image. In the same field of endeavor, Jensen discloses generating audible ophthalmic evaluation prompts on an audio speaker (Paragraph 33); and determining compliance with the audible ophthalmic evaluation prompts prior to capturing the at least one image (Paragraphs 35, 36). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the method of Shousha with generating audible ophthalmic evaluation prompts on an audio speaker; and determining compliance with the audible ophthalmic evaluation prompts prior to capturing the at least one image of Jensen for the purpose of providing a less complex and time consuming computerized eye examinations (Paragraph 5).
Regarding claim 3, Shousha and Jensen teach the method set forth above for claim 2, Jensen further discloses wherein determining compliance prior to capturing the one or more images is performed by receipt of spoken confirmatory user input from. the user that the user has complied (Paragraph 22). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill to provide the method of Shousha with the teachings of Jensen for at least the same reasons as those set forth above with respect to claim 1.
Regarding claim 6, Shousha and Jensen teach the method set forth above for claim 1, Jensen further discloses further comprising: displaying a feature on the display device, wherein the ophthalmic evaluation prompts comprise instructions to look at the feature displayed on the display device (Paragraph 22). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill to provide the method of Shousha with the teachings of Jensen for at least the same reasons as those set forth above with respect to claim 1.
Regarding claim 11, Shousha discloses a computer system including a head-worn device (100), the computer system comprising: one or more processors; one or more display devices; one or more cameras facing towards an eye of a user in use (see Figs. 1A-3, Paragraphs 108-110); and a memory storing instructions that (see Figs. 2, 3), when executed by the one or more processors, configure the computer system to perform operations comprising: displaying an ophthalmic evaluation user interface item (606) on a display device (see Fig. 19, Paragraphs 130, 149); receiving user selection of the user interface item (Paragraph 137); projecting a grid onto a retina of an eye of the user (Paragraph 136); capturing at least one image of the retina of the eye of the user (Paragraph 136); and analyzing the at least one image to assess the health of the eye of the user by comparing an appearance of the grid in the captured image with a reference appearance of the grid (Paragraphs 135-136), wherein the operations further comprise: associated with the head-worn device (Paragraphs 97, 199). Shousha discloses the claimed invention, but does not specify generating audible ophthalmic evaluation prompts on an audio speaker; and determining compliance with the audible ophthalmic evaluation prompts prior to capturing the at least one image. In the same field of endeavor, Jensen discloses generating audible ophthalmic evaluation prompts on an audio speaker (Paragraph 33); and determining compliance with the audible ophthalmic evaluation prompts prior to capturing the at least one image (Paragraphs 35, 36). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the computer system of Shousha with generating audible ophthalmic evaluation prompts on an audio speaker; and determining compliance with the audible ophthalmic evaluation prompts prior to capturing the at least one image of Jensen for the purpose of providing a less complex and time consuming computerized eye examinations (Paragraph 5).
Regarding claim 17, Shousha discloses a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium (see Figs. 2, 3), the computer-readable storage medium including instructions that when executed by a computer system including a head-worn device (100) including one or more display devices and one or more cameras facing towards an eye of a user in use (see Figs. 1A-B, Paragraphs 108-110), cause the computer system to perform operations comprising: displaying an ophthalmic evaluation user interface item (606) on a display device (see Fig. 19, Paragraphs 130, 149); receiving user selection of the user interface item (Paragraph 137), projecting a grid onto a retina of an eye of the user (Paragraph 136), capturing at least one image of the retina of the eye of the user (Paragraph 136); and analyzing the at least one image to assess the health of the eye of the user by comparing an appearance of the grid in the captured image with a reference appearance of the grid (Paragraphs 135-136), wherein the operations further comprise: associated with the head-worn device (Paragraphs 97, 199). Shousha discloses the claimed invention, but does not specify generating audible ophthalmic evaluation prompts on an audio speaker; and determining compliance with the audible ophthalmic evaluation prompts prior to capturing the at least one image. In the same field of endeavor, Jensen discloses generating audible ophthalmic evaluation prompts on an audio speaker (Paragraph 33); and determining compliance with the audible ophthalmic evaluation prompts prior to capturing the at least one image (Paragraphs 35, 36). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the storage medium of Shousha with generating audible ophthalmic evaluation prompts on an audio speaker; and determining compliance with the audible ophthalmic evaluation prompts prior to capturing the at least one image of Jensen for the purpose of providing a less complex and time consuming computerized eye examinations (Paragraph 5).
Regarding claims 5, 13 and 18, Shousha and Jensen teach the method, computer system and storage medium set forth above for claims 1, 11 and 17, Jensen further discloses wherein the audible ophthalmic evaluation prompts comprise instructions to look in a certain direction (Paragraphs 22, 33); and determining compliance is performed by image recognition performed on frames of an image stream received from the one or more cameras (Paragraphs 35, 36). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill to provide the method, computer system and storage medium of Shousha with the teachings of Jensen for at least the same reasons as those set forth above with respect to claims 1, 11 and 17.
Regarding claims 7, 15 and 20, Shousha and Jensen teach the method and computer system set forth above for claims 1, 11 and 17, Jensen further discloses wherein determining compliance prior to capturing the one or more images is performed by receipt of spoken confirmatory user input from the user that the user has complied (Paragraph 22). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill to provide the method, computer system and storage medium of Shousha with the teachings of Jensen for at least the same reasons as those set forth above with respect to claims 1, 11 and 17.
Regarding claims 2, 12 and 21, Shousha further discloses wherein the capturing of the at least one image occurs before a pupil of the user’s eye can constrict in response to the projecting of the grid (Paragraph 107).
Claims 8-10, 14, 16 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shousha (USPG Pub No. 2019/0094552) in view of Jensen (USPG Pub No. 2019/0175011) as applied to claim ` above, and further in view of Samec et al. (USPG Pub No. 2020/0041796), hereinafter “Samec”.
Regarding claim 9, Shousha discloses associated with the head-worn device (Paragraphs 97, 199). Shousha, Jensen and Samec teach the method set forth above for claim 8, Jensen further discloses further comprising: generating audible ophthalmic evaluation prompts on an audio speaker (Paragraph 33); and determining compliance with the audible ophthalmic evaluation prompt prior to capturing the each of the multiple images (Paragraphs 35, 36). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill to provide the method of Shousha and Samec with the teachings of Jensen for at least the same reasons as those set forth above with respect to claim 1.
Regarding claim 10, Shousha, Jensen and Samec teach the method set forth above for claim 8, Samec further discloses wherein the ophthalmic evaluation user interface item comprises a plurality of ophthalmic evaluations available for user selection (Paragraphs 1694, 1695), the method further comprising: receiving user selection of a specific ophthalmic evaluation; and setting illumination and camera exposure settings based on the specific ophthalmic evaluation (Paragraphs 1694, 1695). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill to provide the method of Shousha and Jensen with the teachings of Samec for at least the same reasons as those set forth above with respect to claim 8.
Regarding claim 16, Shousha, Jensen and Samec teach the computer system set forth above for claim 14, Samec further discloses wherein the ophthalmic evaluation user interface item comprises a plurality of ophthalmic evaluations available for user selection (Paragraphs 1694, 1695), wherein the instructions further configure the system to perform operations comprising: receiving user selection of a specific ophthalmic evaluation; and setting illumination and camera exposure settings based on the specific ophthalmic evaluation (Paragraphs 1694, 1695). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill to provide the computer system of Shousha and Jensen with the teachings of Samec for at least the same reasons as those set forth above with respect to claim 14.
Regarding claims 8, 14 and 19, Shousha and Jensen disclose the claimed invention, but do not specify wherein capturing at least one image of the eye of the user comprises: capturing multiple images of the eye of the user from multiple cameras simultaneously; and generating a composite image of the eye of the user from the simultaneously captured multiple images. In the same field of endeavor, Samec discloses wherein capturing at least one image of the eye of the user comprises: capturing multiple images of the eye of the user from multiple cameras simultaneously (Paragraph 1879); and generating a composite image of the eye of the user from the simultaneously captured multiple images (Paragraph 1879). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the method, computer system and storage medium of Shousha and Jensen with wherein capturing at least one image of the eye of the user comprises: capturing multiple images of the eye of the user from multiple cameras simultaneously; and generating a composite image of the eye of the user from the simultaneously captured multiple images of Samec for the purpose of providing a compact and inexpensive ophthalmic device which allows a convenient method for an eye examination of a patient (Paragraph 5).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1-3 and 5-21 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MAHIDERE S SAHLE whose telephone number is (571)270-3329. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 8:00 AM to 5:00 PM.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Ricky Mack can be reached at 571 272-2333. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/MAHIDERE S SAHLE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2872 11/19/2025